Talk:Monsanto

Poor Choice of Wording

In the rBGH section the author says these hormones are linked to increased levels of "pus". Can this be rephrased to say increased levels of mastitis and then if needed discuss what mastitis really is. This feeds to much into the PETA concept that milk is pus and I really don't think that's NPOV. --Lark61 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Disinfopedia link comment

How odd. The link "Disinfopedia on Monsanto" under External Links seems to appear sometimes when doing a search on Monsanto in a wiki search box and other times it disappears. A glitch?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 04:32, 20 June 2004 (talk) 206.149.36.192 The above contrib was removed by an IP at 19:38, 22 February 2006, and is now restored, for the clarity of the record, at 04:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

Neutrality

I agree with the user below. Wikipedia is not simply a place for opinions to be expressed. These articles need to express facts. Saying that Monsanto is "easily the most reviled" biotech company is not neutral and goes against the principles of the website. I noticed that this has been modified to attempt to create some neutrality, but sticking to verifiable facts is important for all parties involved in the Wikipedia community.

Waterloo che 08 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Untitled Discussion re Cancer]

The following three contribs (of 21 Aug 2007, 5 October 2007, and 1 December 2008) were initially positioned in a section "Neutrality", following one contrib dated 29 October 2006, that apparently elicited no responses; nothing in the three suggests any of them are intended as such responses. I was curious about the part on causing cancer, I read the two sources provided and they do not seem like scientific articles. Specifically reference 11. There were limited test subjects and I didn't read anything saying the the subjects were not exposed to other chemicals in there lifetime. Without this claim a smoker could claim that it was the peanut butter they ate that gave them lung cancer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.143.153.65 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:39:20 21 Aug 2007 UTC (UTC)

Reference 11, specifically concludes that "definite conclusions cannot be drawn for separate chemicals, such as MCPA and glyphosate, from the multivariate analysis", and is largely a risk analysis of other pesticides. meanwhile, reference 12 is frmo the 'organic consumers' website, and seems to be completely unscientific tripe. however, reference 11 does cite other studies which found that glyphosphate did increase mutation rates in mice see references 44 - 50 of that article. The wikipedia article on glyphosphate cites a comprehensive review of the health issues from 2000 which says that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans". AS such, i am deleting the bit about glyphosphate and cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorguinness (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

man Monsanto is so bloody awsome if nothing else just for the fact that they piss off "activists"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2008

POV

I'm no fan of Monsanto... but by saying "they are easily the most reviled" isn't exactly a neutral viewpoint, nor is it particularly informative.Snefreely 05:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But, you could easily find and add references to public polls that state exactly that. Would that be okay? Personally I am impressed with how neutral this article is considering the subject. Carewolf 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The following contrib was removed 21:27, 10 March 2008 by 69.110.4.68 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 4 minutes after removing the {{POV}} tag from the accompanying article, each without recording a summary of the corresponding edit. Restored by Jerzy•t 08:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

I am not. This article is a rant, and random users stumbling across it get a sense of its biased tone (see bottom two headings). It includes every anti-Monsanto bit of trivia available and cites several anti-Monsanto sites as references—and that's for the few claims that are cited. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

yes please show us the forum poll that you posted at peta. its totally legit considering how smart those guys are
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2008

That is a personal attack, and a violation of fundamental policy. (Except for the 2nd sentence, which is terminally vague, other than appearing to involve sarcasm.) You can ask for specific data, and when presented you can contest its objectivity.
--Jerzy•t 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

re - "that they are easily the most reviled"
As the course must be set for neutrality - I would encourage that the facts about Monsanto be presented early - the extermination of countless seed and food varieties, as well as their deliberations meant to end humanity's age old basic survival tactics of allowing farmers to grow and reproduce their own seed - which are 2 factual statements - just as it is written neutrally in Wiki. that "Hitler's bid for territorial conquest and racial subjugation caused the deaths of 43 million people, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews as well as various additional "undesirable" populations in what is known as the Holocaust".
In this case it is difficult for me to agree with 'neutral'. I believe the statement is quite factual and constructively informative "that they are easily the most reviled". It is the same as saying that the Beatles were easily the most popular pop group in one certain era - or as Wiki. writes; "The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music".
It is very difficult to see these realities being hidden in any way, from any light - and perhaps the truth of these statements will only be realized in the future, when we witness more of 'what hath been wrought' by this frankenstein of a company . I wold say that it can be argued that it is factual, rather than neutral that they are the most reviled, especially since they have more than earned this specific reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddydee (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Monsanto/Pfizer ownership

Monsanto is currently owned by Pfizer. (... through a middle-company buy-out, iirc.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.202.34 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2004

Monsanto is NOT owned by Pfizer. Monsanto merged with Pharmacia in 2000. Pharmacia took the medical research divisions they were interested in (which included Celebrex) and then spun off the Agricultural divisions into the "new" Monsanto. From 2000 until 2002, Pharmacia still owned about 85% of the "new" Monsanto. In 2002 the "new" Monsanto was spun-off completely, and has been a completely seperate company since then. Also in 2002, Pharmacia was purchased by Pfizer, but Monsanto was already a seperate company and wasn't part of this. Kenj0418 15:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Reference to "Monsatan"

I removed the line "It is negatively referred to by many of its most outspoken critics as Monsatan." I don't see any value in having what insults opponents use against Monsanto included. Other corporate pages I checked don't have this sort of comments included either. (For example, "Fix Or Repair Daily" (an insult concerning the quality of Ford vehicles) isn't on the page on Ford). This contribution was made and signed at 18:59, 14 February 2005 by User:Kenj0418, who then removed that sig and added another 'graph at 19:40, following it with a signature that was true for the second 'graph but not for the first. (The two 'graphs were separated by another user's contrib a few hours later, and seem to have been treated as separate since then.) Jerzy•t 04:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the Monsatan information should remain. It helps clarify Monsanto's dubious distinction as "most reviled". From what I can see, the company name is a household word in much of the world, and much of that is due to various court cases and publicity (not because lots of people use Round-Up on their lawns). Monsatan is not at all the same as Fix Or Repair Daily, which is simply a sweeping negative product opinion. Widespread use (albeit in activist circles) of a nickname like Monsatan is a fact, and illustrates the extraordinary degree of conviction of its detractors that is a major element of the Monsanto's social context. E.g.: Monsanto boss's grand vision gets reality check ... Robert Shapiro figured his biotechnology factory could serve both humanity and investors. But consumers are wary of food seen as unnatural. Now his products are labelled 'Frankenfoods' and the firm is demonized as "Monsatan." - Globe and Mail 22-Dec-99 - Tsavage 23:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning the fact that some people called Monsanto "Monsatan". I was only questioning whether this was relevant to the entry and NPOV. I've found several other, more prominant, entries that contain derisive nick names, namely Slick Willy, and Tricky Dick, so I've added Monsatan back. I've created a new section specifically about Monsanto's controversies. I placed the Monsatan comment there. I also mentioned the use of the term frankenfoods. Based on a Google test, this term for GE foods appears much more common than the use of Monsatan. Kenj0418 22:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The use of the term "Monsatan" isn't appropriate, as it doesn't add anything useful to the article. Frankenfoods falls into this category as well. It is a term that is used for all genetically modified foods, and doesn't even apply specifically to Monsanto. It would be entirely sufficient to mention that some of their genetically modified products are classified as fit for human consumption. We don't need either of these two weasel words, we just need the company facts in this document. Anything that doesn't fit that description should be removed. I won't remove them myself, as we don't need a revert war, but I would appreciate some agreement on this. --Micah Hainline 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Bold text'<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here == coolness == </nowiki>== [Re "Politics" sec'n] == (The original context of the "also" in this contrib is that it was originally the second of two 'graphs, of which the first was and remains the first 'graph of the <<Reference to "Monsatan">> section I also removed the politics section. All but two of the people it refered to are no longer in office. Also, the section was unsubstatiated and of questionable NPOV. Kenj0418 19:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Section on mergers

I notice that the current section on "spin-offs and mergers" section only includes big movings and shakings. Do we need a new section for smaller acquisitions such as their March 25 purchase of Seminis Inc.[1] This section could also include analysis of acquisitons. For example, what is the significance of them buying up "the largest developer, grower and marketer of fruit and vegetable seeds in the world"? mennonot 04:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be...fun. (I was going to add Seminis, but decided to wait until it was fully approved and finalized, which I think is still a few weeks away. It's cool when Wiki articles are more or less real-time, but I guess it's a matter of exactly how up-to-the-minute one wants to be. In this case, Seminis could have been added a couple of months ago, or only when it's a done deal.) Tsavage 04:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

23-Mar-2005 Monsanto announced Seminis finalized so I added an initial line in the intro. Tsavage 00:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of the purchase of DEKALB Genetics Corporation. This gave them patents used in the production of corn and soybeans. There is no mention of the purchase of Asgrow which gave them the largest marketer of soybeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.39.179 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I am striking thru the rendition of material by two different contributors that i have also placed inside the box, bcz it unacceptably misrepresents the authorship of most of the content, and technically consitutes a forgery. While it seems obvious that no ill intent was involved, permitting such disregard for clarity is about what sigs cover to persist creates an environment where those intending to obscure or falsify the record may succeed unnoticed.
--Jerzy•t 07:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag to the top of the page. This article seems heavily biased against Monsanto. A few of the more aggregious examples of bias here:

1. Board of Directors section - this section lists numerous people as directors, although none of their names appear as directors on the company's website (http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/about_us/board.asp). Assuming these are actually former directors, the only reason for apparently including them is because of their negative associations. (Although the fact that someone was an assistant to a friend of Hitlers is bit of a reach.)

The BoD listing is now simply a list of members as listed on the Monsanto site as referenced above (see also [[#Board of Directors listing Board of Directors listing] below.

2. "In 1967, Monsanto enters into a joint venture with IG Farben, the key supplier of poison gas to the Nazi racial extermination program." Again, the only purpose of this seems to try to attack Monsanto by association. Also, according to the linked article, this company was no longer in existence in 1967. Was the joint venture with Bayer (the successor company?) if so, apparently the old name was chosen here only for its negative past.

This reference has been deleted.

3."Infact its yield was even far lower than the hybrid variety that led to a number of suicides among cotton farmers, especially in Andhra Pradesh" - First, this is poorly written -- did Monsanto's cotton suposedly 'lead to' the suicides, or is it being compared to some hybrid that did(which isn't explained further). Either way that some cotton seed caused suicides is a outlandish claim to be made in a supposedly encyclopedic article. --Kenj0418 18:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

This section was rewritten, and the reference to suicides no longer appears.

At some point previously, the NPOV tag was removed. My notes reflect the current situation compared to the concerns noted here. --Tsavage 17:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The following is the earlier of the two contributions:
I added the NPOV tag to the top of the page. This article seems heavily biased against Monsanto. A few of the more aggregious examples of bias here:

1. Board of Directors section - this section lists numerous people as directors, although none of their names appear as directors on the company's website (http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/about_us/board.asp). Assuming these are actually former directors, the only reason for apparently including them is because of their negative associations. (Although the fact that someone was an assistant to a friend of Hitlers is bit of a reach.)
2. "In 1967, Monsanto enters into a joint venture with IG Farben, the key supplier of poison gas to the Nazi racial extermination program." Again, the only purpose of this seems to try to attack Monsanto by association. Also, according to the linked article, this company was no longer in existence in 1967. Was the joint venture with Bayer (the successor company?) if so, apparently the old name was chosen here only for its negative past.
3. "Infact its yield was even far lower than the hybrid variety that led to a number of suicides among cotton farmers, especially in Andhra Pradesh" - First, this is poorly written -- did Monsanto's cotton suposedly 'lead to' the suicides, or is it being compared to some hybrid that did(which isn't explained further). Either way that some cotton seed caused suicides is a outlandish claim to be made in a supposedly encyclopedic article.

Kenj0418 18:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The following is not a contribution of Tsavage, but all of of its prose is taken from their unacceptable contrib of 17:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC), and the only prose from that omitted here is text that appears to be what was submitted by Kenj0418 immediately above. It would be hard to conceive the intent of Tsavage being other than for the 3 numbered points below to serve as their responses to the corresponding 3 numbered points made above by Kenj0418. The final and unnumbered point is presumably addressed to either Kj's contrib as a whole, or its initial and unnumbered point.
--Jerzy•t 07:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The BoD listing is now simply a list of members as listed on the Monsanto site as referenced above (see also [[#Board of Directors listing Board of Directors listing] below.
2. This reference has been deleted.
3. This section was rewritten, and the reference to suicides no longer appears.

At some point previously, the NPOV tag was removed. My notes reflect the current situation compared to the concerns noted here.

This ends my refactoring of Ts's unacceptable edit.
--Jerzy•t 07:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this references Vandana Shiva's "Earth Democracy", but I could be wrong. -- Anon
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.220.5 (talk • contribs) 11:34 & :36, 12 August 2007

Monsanto-Iraq

in this german newspaper interview article: http://www.taz.de/pt/2005/03/12/a0154.nf/text in 3/2005 is written:

"But which is, if the large companies really come into difficulties? They are nevertheless very effective Maschinerien, which manufacture and drive goods out favorably. Do we at all still get along without their goods?

Manfred Max-Neef (alternative nobel prize 1983): I would ask rather: Do we have to really go down with those? Which those drive, is sometimes simply insufferable. Take they for example the new seeds law of the US administration for the Iraq: All farmers in the Iraq are therefore forced to burn their seeds. They may buy seeds only at the US company Monsanto. That stands literally in such a way in the law. And Monsanto brings a step more near to its company target: Monsanto formulated the modest requirement to control in 20 years the world market for seeds to 100 per cent. That is everything, only 100 per cent. Work on it, and many do not notice it." ( supp. by automatic translation)

Is this true ? (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Max-Neef)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.155.189 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2005

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.137.10 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2005

Yes, include it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.148.211 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2006

Board of Directors listing

I have removed the Board of Directors section altogether from this entry since it was inflammatory to the point of childishness. I cannot find other large corporations thathave similar information. This article is still awash in bias, but the BoD stuff was ridiculous. Dottore So 15:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This appears to have been reinserted and now lists the BoD as posted on the Monsanto Web site. --Tsavage 17:18 & :30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• After some confusion, i find that "this entry" refers to the accompanying article page, where the "Board of Directors" section had been removed a few minutes earlier, and that this does not refer to another un-archived removal of a contribution on this talk page.
  For anyone concerned that res ipsa loquitur, so that NPoV might require blaming the inflammation on the situation and not the facts that are presented as evidence of the situation, the established WP policy that justifies that removal is SYNTH. Well done.
  --Jerzy•t
  

Cleanup tag (Aug-05) removed

I removed the cleanup tag. The article seems to be in reasonably good shape, with no problems obvious to me with NPOV, grammar, content or references. There was also no reason for the original tagging, here on the Talk page (as of today; I didn't search the history). I also checked the various Talk page concerns (again, as of today), and all appear to have been addressed. --Tsavage 17:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Major edit to Monsanto vs Schmeiser

I cut down the Schmeiser case coverage to proportional length and summary depth. The case is covered in detail elsewhere, as referenced in the article (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser and in the hopefully soon to be merge section in Percy Schmeiser). --Tsavage 21:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I merged the longer form coverage from the Percy Schmeiser bio article with what was at Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, and now also moved and merged the original longer text that was here. --Tsavage 19:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

False information is stated in this section of this article. Schmeiser alleged that GMO seed contaminated his field accidentally, but evidence showed that the entire field was planted with GMO seed by Mr. Schmeiser. To say it was "accidental" is a complete misstatement of the facts of the case. Objectivity must be preserved. Landroo 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that statement is not even consistent with the Wikipedia article on the court case. Shanebratt 09:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The information presented on this case in this article, 2 years later, is still inaccurate. I have edited it so that it may more accurately reflect the situation. The changes I made were: 1) It was asserted in this article that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schmeiser. I changed that because the court actually ruled that, even though he did infringe on Monsanto's patent, he did not get any profit from this infringement so Monsanto was not entitled to any damages. The Court did not rule in favor of Schmeiser at all, they ruled in favor of Monsanto. 2) There was a mention of a "small court ruling in 2008 settling the original case for $660." Not so. A year after the original case was settled by the Supreme Court, Schmeiser alleged he discovered more Round Up Resistant Canola in his field, and sent Monsanto a bill of $660, which was the cost for him to remove it. The Small Claims case in 2008 was in relation to that issue, not to the original complaint in 1997. I took mention of that out entirely, as it just doesn't seem worth mentioning that a company with billions of dollars of revenues paid somebody $660. If somebody wants to put it back in, they can, but the text should accurately refer that the judgement came as the result of a different case, and the circumstances of the case. Shanebratt (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanitizing

Anon users in the 71.142.216.* range (such as 71.142.229.107) seem to be attempting to "sanitize" this page by deleting references to legal actions and controversial products that the company has been associated with. I don't think such information should be removed, as it is all verifiable, but I don't want this this article to read like a burning effigy of Monsanto either. I deleted one of the external links (there were already several that described lawsuits and controverseys). Would anyone else care to re-review this for NPOV? Jasmol 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's different cases, why not include them all? I think they are all of interest.

The statement regarding Schmeiser vs. Monsanto reads as the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of Monsanto. The section may have been cut down for space, but the content left is in itself misleading. The supreme court of Canada did rule in favour of Monsanto on some issues, but overruled the Federal Courts of Canada ruling against Schmeiser ordering him to pay monsanto $15/acre technology fee. The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada for the independant canola farmer is noteworthy against an agricultural giant like Monsanto.

Response: It shouldn't be about a little guy beating a big corporation, it should be about the facts. The facts of the case should be presented accurately and for the most part, in this article they are not. It seems that several people involved with writing this article have had a heavy bias in the subject and they should withdraw their contributions. For example, "seeds blew off a truck and into his field" is blatantly mis-stating the facts of the case, as court evidence showed, it's physically impossible to plant 900 acres of a pure stand of canola without deliberately doing so. His motives were clearly to enrich himself by knowingly committing fraud. The propaganda to the contrary is clearly generated to favor the anti-gmo point-of-view, and should be eliminated from this discussion. This is not a forum for furthering the causes of the anti-gmo movement.Landroo 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While inclined to agree that the article may need improvement, and removing any inaccuracies such as that above, I think it quite possible that a "balanced" view will not present Monsanto in a creditable light. It may assist balance by asking contributers to disclose any interest Winstonwolfe 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

Once again, let the facts speak for themselves. Who cares about what "light" is cast? Who cares which agenda is supported? If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, leave your personal attitudes at the door, and stick to the facts.Landroo 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Selecting which facts are portrayed is hardly unrelated to personal attitudes - nor are they something that can be left at the door. This is not to deny that there may be an objective reality, but any simplification into an brief encyclopedia article will inevitably - even with the best of intentions - be tarred with the bias of contributors. Anything manifestly incorrect should not be tolerated, but what you view as "the facts" may not be something others agree with; for example, clearly there is disagreement over the significane of the legal ruling above. Legal decisions are usually not black and white x is right, y is wrong, "facts", so this is hardly surprising. In a wider view, the major historical interest in Monsanto may not be its bottom line, or directors, but the ethics of its production of GMOs, and if that is where most contributors interests lie, that may justify it being the major part of this article. Incidentally I am not personally opposed to responsibly handled GMOs, nor am I defending my own writing - if you view logs you will note I haven't contributed to the case law being criticised. Winstonwolfe 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Monsanto editing it's own Page I see lots of edits by 164.144.123.1 - the Whois Lookup shows this to be Monsanto themselves getting into the fray. Not surprising that they are heavily editing the contributions by the rest of the free world. 209.217.93.134 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't have people who know about the company editing this article. 85.0.177.215 08:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Perhaps the view is biased, but at least there would be some balance overall. And yes, I am someone who knows about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.17.99 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking over the world?

Is it true that Monsanto has explicitly expressed a desire that all the world's crops (or food crops, or something) be grown from Monsanto seed? --대조 | Talk 18:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well they say they would just like to control/own 100% of the world's seeds. Yas121 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference needed. 83.78.28.41 (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Untested products?

I am doubtful of this statement at the end of the article's introduction:

"Some genetically engineered products are regulated by existing environmental laws, while other products have not been rigorously tested for safety."

Is this meaning to claim

1. Monsanto is violating envionmental laws with some of their GMOs?
2. Environmental laws don't cover some of their GMOs? or
3. Monsanto's GMO's are regulated, but some other (non-GMO) products aren't tested?

Regardless of which was the intended meaning, the statement is too vauge. If someone can clarify what this statement means, and provided some sort of source for the intended claim they should add that back to the article, until that happens, I am removing this statement. kenj0418 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Texas City Disaster

The statement on the Texas City Disaster appears to be inaccurate. It reads in relevant part:

"In 1947, ammonium nitrate fertilizer made by Monsanto and loaded on the French ship S.S. Grandcamp was responsible for the Texas City Disaster in Galveston Bay."

The available online documentation indicates that this is not true.

• Three Supreme Court justices, in their dissent to Dalehite v. U.S. [2], state that: "The fertilizer had been manufactured in government-owned plants at the Government's order and to its specifications."

• The Wikipedia page on the Texas City Disaster states that: "The 35% ammonium nitrate, used as fertilizer but also in high explosives, was manufactured in Nebraska and Iowa (not at the nearby Monsanto or Union Carbide plants) and shipped to Texas City by rail before being loaded on the Grandcamp, adjacent to a cargo of ammunition."

• The Handbook of Texas [3] contains the following statement: "More than 3,000 lawsuits involving the United States government, since the chemicals had originated in U.S. ordnance plants, were resolved by 1956, when a special act passed by Congress settled all claims for a total of $16.5 million."

The Monsanto plant in Texas City was destoyed in the explosion. Thus it would appear that Monsanto and its employees who perished were victims of the disaster, not the perpetrators. Absent evidence to the contrary, the statement blaming Monsanto for the disaster is inaccurate and should be removed. In addition Given this, the statement about the Edgar Monsanto Queeny safety award is of questionable unclear relevance to Texas City.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.21.126.112 (talk) 19:11, :16, :18, :20, :27, 13 March 2006

I corrected the account, and removed a reference to the error in the later saftey award entry. --Tsavage 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On 29 Apr the Tsavage version was reverted anonymously without explanation. Restored Tsavage version since objections above were not addressed. Highnote 15:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda section

I think the Propaganda section is clearly NPOV. It makes no distinction between propaganda and the accepted practice of simple advertising. It states the propaganda campaign as a given, and the very use of the term is non-neutral, as are the unsubstantiated claims (a single website as evidence). The section is even more clearly biased against Monsanto than the rest of the article, and I have temporarily removed it, until it can be cleaned up. Globber 17:00, 8 Aug 2006 (UTC)

While not an expert, I find it difficult to see how the deleted opening paragraph (under) is NPOV.

"Over the last several decades Monsanto has transformed its corporate business from the exclusive manufacture of toxic chemicals including PCBs, Agent Orange, herbicides and pesticides to the world's largest seed owner. They have ushered in a new era of patent protected, genetically modified plants and GMO food. Monsanto's Round Up Ready crops dominate America and are spreading around the globe". Winstonwolfe 04:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The aim of the section was to discredit Monsanto, and the potrayal of a chemical company exclusively concerned with spread toxins into a biotech company making frankenfood is obvious. Besides, the points made in this blurb are already included elsewhere Globber 13:00, 9 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept "simple advertising", and moreover, advertising is propaganda, it is identical in form, function, and implementation, so there is no distinction to be made. "Propaganda" is value neutral in the same way that "kill" is value neutral - it's a neutral term for an act that at least in some instances many or most people find abhorrent. --Jammoe (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agent Orange...

I think that this article is lacking almost any information about Monsanto's role in Vietnam, and the sometimes quite toxic effects of agent orange. Xarxis 03:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC

The following statements are in the article:

In "History": "Other major products have included dioxin (in the herbicides 2,4,5-T and Agent Orange), aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone; BST), and PCBs." and "In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto is the leading producer of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam."

In "Legal Issues - As Defendant" : "It was sued by veterans for the side effects of its Agent Orange defoliant, used by the US military in the Vietnam War."

Much more information regarding Agent Orange, its use during the Vietnam War and subsequent lawsuits can be found in the article. Is there something specific that you feel should be mentioned on this article that isn't currently?
kenj0418 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The leading producer? Who else produced it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2007

Dow was the leading producer, but many of the major chemical companies produced some of it. See Agent Orange. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

god if you people watched few docuementaries on youtube and learned more chemistry you would realize that agent orange itself was not toxic or carcinogenic but it's rather excess heat during the reaction that can result in dioxins as impurities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008

• _ First, don't interrupt others' signed talk contribs with your own.
  _ One of the neat things abt WP is that if you had clicked on Agent Orange, you'd have learned in the first sentence that w/in WP, "Agent Orange" doesn't refer to a compound, but to a supply item available to US forces (and in the context of Monsanto, it's reasonable to use that term for the product they provided, impurities and all). Now, if the accompanying article, or the AO one, uses the term inconsistently, that would be of interest.
  _ BTW, WP is committed to verifiability and NPoV, while the video medium is on one hand hard to use for either research or verification, and on the other, relatively heavily dedicated to changing people's opinions via their gut rather than via evaluation of facts. (Last time i recall using YouTube as a WP source, even informally on a talk page, was to clarify who did what on Letterman when Earl Scruggs and Steve Martin were on.)
  --Jerzy•t 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  

My view on NPOV

I don't remember hearing about this company before so I've come to it new.

The first thing that strikes me about the article is that the first section contains details about attacks on the company not just details about the company.

The attacks are obviously important and likely to be the reason that the company has been searched for but I think they should be placed in the second section of the page. The first section should contain mainly the non-controversial description of the company and use many of the same facts that a shareholders blurb would contain with the addition of a sampling of major failures. Included there would be ONE sentence to the effect that it's often refered to as "the most reviled company", only in the second section should the information about the attacks be more detailed.

After re-reading I see that the two paragraphs in the first section have been somewhat divided in this way but the division is by no means clear or complete and so appears to be POV. 86.16.132.141 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

General Opinions

After some reading about the Monsanto. It seems clear to me that this article indead does not hold a neutral point of view. However, to simply state the fact will make this company look bad. So, I opinion: take off some of the more aggressive words and leave the rest as it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gw2005 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Pro-Industry NPOV Violation

The bit about how it was a "David and Goliath" confrontation and that the farmer was the "wronged little guy even though Monsanto offered to settle at each stage of the case" is a clear pro-industry bit of sarcasm and disparaging the case of the single farmer without presenting any facts relating to the case or the nature of Monsanto's settlement offers. It is clearly designed to repudiate sympathy for the individual farmer. This should be changed to a neutral standpoint.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.136.74 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2007

Well, you do realize that the clause was written by someone in Monsanto, right? I really think the article is closer to NPOV now than it was a month ago, but you're right about this clause. These details should go into the case article. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

how do you know?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2008

Nap Hal

Nap Hal... was this the seed that Monsanto filed a patent for that was essentially exactly the same as one of the traditional, native seeds used by Indian farmers? Eventually got overturned by the EU's patent folks due to activists? --Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.220.5 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2007

Broken ref tag

The edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&oldid=165211802 by User:Phantomwolf13 on 17 Oct had an incorrect closing </ref> tag which I've now fixed. This fix might have revealed content that has not been previously reviewed. MaxEnt 12:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Undue Weight

Most of this article is "controversies about Monsanto" rather than information on the company itself. Those are fine, but there's just way too many of them. If people want to read everything that Monsanto has ever done that was controversial, they need only do Google search. We don't need a full blown enumeration of them. --Micah Hainline (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Monsanto and its legal controversies should stay. There are few companies that end up with a majority of their product lines in legal/ethical/international trade disputes. As such, the controversies are a core part of any discussion of the company. RoundUp can cause systemic sequelae, The Dekalb product group is in the middle of distilled biofuels controversies, Seminis products have been dumped at below-market prices, leading to fruit subspecies extinction. Then, after all the mundane stuff, we can get to the issue of genetically altered seeds in the Asgrow, Bollgard, Seminis and Deltapine product groups. --Anon2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlerubberfeet (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 April 2008

Dear user Micah Hainline: If this is the case, then please start adding information about the company itself. No one is objecting to that. The controversial information should stay. If you think it is pov, then start adding information to balance it. JS747 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the corporation, like a whole lot of others, is violent and destructible and detestable, but there is a legitimate article-writing question about how to deal with the many large controversies it's been involved in. It would just make things cleaner and more accessible if there was a practical way to summarize a bit. Some of the trouble, however, comes in that representing the scale and number of the things it's done, in anything less than immediately verifiable facts, is going to be seen as a "POV violation". --Jammoe (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The World According to Monsanto (references needed)

Marie-Monique Robin's film "The World According to Monsanto" (Le Monde selon Monsanto) includes a clip of the Monsanto Wikipedia article. Embarrassingly, a "[citation needed]" notice is clearly visible in the film. It's in the list of Monsanto's current and former products.

Agent Orange, aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone; BST), and PCBs

The film itself even gives a bunch of references. I've added a reference for PCBs. If someone's interested, can they add references for each of these please (Just takes a bit of googling)? —Pengo 12:23 & :52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen the film, but interesting that a "[citation needed]" notice is clearly visible on the Wikipedia page shown. Rather than embarrassing I actually think it's great! It illustrates how important Wikipedia has made accuracy and shows that bias (as is being discussed elsewhere on this page) can be actively countered with demands that allegations be substantiated or deleted. Snozzwanger (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'Reviled' is probably accurate

While I agree the article has to be neutral, I think it's true that Monsanto is universally reviled.

In the UK Monsanto has a poor reputation. That reputation, as has been pointed by the crimes and litigation listed in the article, is actually well deserved. These aren't nice people.

That's not to say Monsanto hasn't cleaned up its act. I don't much about the company's activity recently. But I do believe the word 'reviled' should stay in the article. Monsanto may have achieved a great deal of good with its products, but any good that it achieved seems by and large to be a byproduct of their quest for profit, not their goal. They have almost gone out of their way to act like cowboys, dumping toxic waste and generally behaving in a brutal corporate fashion. While they may profess their desire to benefit mankind, their actions show a different, more ruthless, agenda.

People around the world don't like Monsanto. That is a fact. And as it is a fact, it should be stated in the article. Not to do so would be like ignoring the elephant in the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpolwarth (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

i like monsanto... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008

• You are wrong in saying

And as it is a fact, it should be stated in the article.

We don't document all facts, only facts verifiable as accepted knowledge. When you provide the verification, without OR, and you've got a good point.
--Jerzy•t 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone)

The first paragraph in this section is from an activist website that has no sources. Can we get something more scientific? If not, it's gotta be gutted because it's a non-reliable source that is definitely not NPOV. Micahmedia (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference updates and using "Environmental Justice Activists" as a cited reference

In the rBGH section, I've added references to high-quality peer-reviewed scientific journal articles (HQPRSJA) for the links between IGF-1 and specific cancers. We need HQPRSJA linking rBGH and IGF-1 production.

It would also be nice to have a HQPRSJA showing actual differences between natural BGH and rBGH. I would suspect that the effect (if any) is not between significant structural differences between rBGH and natrual BGH, but in the excess amount of rBGH given to cows to up milk production. But I'm just pulling that out of the air.

Also, I'm pretty sure Environmental Justice Activists links do not qualify as WP:V as there is obvious bias, which has no place in an encylopedia article. We shouldn't be relying on these and I have thus removed one. However, they do provide reprints of some journal articles and I think these are acceptable to use as reference URLs (in citation templates). --InsufficientData (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

“The excitotoxin aspartame”

The text names aspartame as an excitotoxin without qualification. However, Wikipedia's article on the aspartame controversy states that “aspartate can act as an excitotoxin” at “high concentrations,” which is not at all the same thing. While there definitely is a controversy over aspartame, most world government sources deem it safe for humans. Therefore, I think it's POV and inappropriate to simply call it a kind of toxin. However, the spirit of the passage is to show that Monsanto has a lot of controversial products. Perhaps it would be best to replace the current phrase with “the controversial sweetener aspartame”? (Although the neutrality of that page is disputed too.!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradd (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Terminator

How should these plants pollinate if they have been made unable to flower???

(Dominiquee (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Ignoring the question above, there is a significant logical inconsistency in this section, and I fail to see how it relates to concerns about the company's environmental and health record. If the Genetic use restriction technology was indeed developed by Delta and Pine Land, which Monsanto acquired in 2007, how could Monsanto be promising not to use it back in 1999? The first sentence is entirely inaccurate, and there is already an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to so-called Terminator Technology. This section appears to based on a single Guardian article, which hardly espouses a NPOV. Given that this technology has neven been field-tested, merely patented, how does it relate to Monsanto's environmental and health record?JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spreading sterility

I wish to highlight a factual problem with part of the section on "Terminator Technology", aka GURTs. While the GURT page has more detail, I take issue with this sentence, in particular the final clause:

"There is also concern that the Terminator effect will be spread to native vegetation through pollination, rendering all plants unable to reproduce fruit."

I made an edit previously pointing out that sterility by definition cannot spread sexually. The first generation of seeds cross-pollinated with a GURT would not grow, thus stopping its spread. This is a basic principle of evolutionary biology - that deleterious genes are eliminated from the population. My edit was quickly reverted with no explanation by User:Nutriveg, so I think although this is an obvious biological constraint it appears that it needs to be discussed so that some amount of a consensus can be reached among community members.

I flagged the sentence as needing a citation because there is a factual claim being made that needs to be backed up or changed. At the very least, pointing out some of the detail already on the GURT page would be a good idea considering that it addresses the pseudobiological "spreading sterility" concern. Finally, the fantastical idea that something as mundane as sterile seed could "render all plants unable to reproduce fruit" has no basis, and isn't even grammatically correct. I'm willing to dig up a reference for the debunking of these claim, including adding more detail to the GURT page. I thought I would bring it up now on the discussion page to get more input--76.210.74.249 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal controversies

As some have already made this point, I think there is a case to be made that the huge section about legal controversies be put into a different sub-entry with the title Legal controveries surrounding Monsanto or Lawsuits against Monsanto. As of now, the article is a bit too agressive against the corporation, and could try to be less negative in its presentation of the company. ADM (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

reading the text of those legal controversies, it appears completely appropriate to me. the fact that they were in "the longest civil trial in us history" by itself says quite alot about just how familiar this company is to legal controversies.Yourmanstan (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the outcomes of the legal controversies is not stated in a brief manner?Yourmanstan (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentary - Large Reference to Monsanto

I am not associated with the film at all, but thought it was important enough to have it included for people to review as a part of their research into this company. Any thoughts on including such?

(Example)
Documentary

The company Monsanto is significantly featured in this film.
The Future Of Food (1:28:54)
Description: The Future Of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
Genre: Documentary and Biography
Producer: Catherine Lynn Butler
Writer: Deborah Koons Garcia
Released: November 13, 2007

Thanks in advance for your help, very new to this...

Bryan wikiedit (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move, and this is about a clear cut a case of a primary topic (and common name) as we get at requested moves.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Monsanto Company → Monsanto — Until very recently, the title of this article was "Monsanto"; now, that title redirects to a disambiguation page. Monsanto Company is a widely-known multi-national corporation; none of the other entries on the disambiguation page appears to be even remotely as notable. Therefore, I suggest that this article is the primary topic of the ambiguous title Monsanto and should be moved to that title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - Their official name is Monsanto Company, people may be looking for Monsanto, California, and having to make one extra click (in the process learning that there is more than one Monsanto in the world) isn't all that bad of a thing. My vote is to keep as is. --Travis Thurston+ 18:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. Reason for move was "Proper full name of company" but see WP:NC#Companies. As to the unincorporated Calif. community, it got 85 pageviews in June, compared to 28,789 for Monsanto. Station1 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as primary topic. Travis's comment reads to me as "intentionally make it harder for them to find what they want", which is pretty contrary to ease-of-use. An "otheruses" hatnote in the first line tells them same thing while still getting them immediately to where they apparently-probably want to be. Of the three article-space pages linked to Monsanto, two want the company and one wants a town in Portugal (I can't even figure out which of the two dab links should get that one). DMacks (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, pretty clear-cut case of both primary topic and common name. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The town/city is nowhere near as popular. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MON863 liver and kidney toxicity should be deleted

The study cited in the MON863 liver and kidney toxicity section has been refuted, and this section should be deleted. The conclusions that Seralini et al derived from the study are based on basic Type 1 statistical errors... the kind that undergraduate stats students shouldn't be making. Dr. Christopher Preston of the University of Adelaide explains:

"Seralini and his co-workers in their paper reported 494 comparisons between rats fed GM food and rats fed conventional food. With this number of comparisons, you would expect to get 25 differences at a probability of 5% and 5 differences at a probability of 1% where no differences exist. Seralini reports 33 differences at 5% and 4 differences at 1%; almost exactly the number you would predict to occur through chance. This is an elementary problem in statistics and a practice that good scientists avoid. It also totally undermines any conclusions drawn from the analysis."

Given that this is the only research that suggests MON863 may be unsafe (anyone with knowledge of basic statistics can see it's incorrect), and that all other evidence indicates that MON863 is non-toxic and fine for human consumption, this entire section should be deleted. There is a good reason that the Japanese, Mexican, Canadian, South Korean, Taiwanese, American and European Union food regulators have approved it as safe -- because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise. A more detailed defense of the original Monsanto study attacked by Seralini et al can be found footnoted here. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as it's been a month now, I'm deleting this section. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Environmental and health record concerns

This sentence, referenced to look plausible, is completely untrue: Roundup has been a source of ongoing controversy, as researchers in several studies have argued that it leads to the first stages of and/or causes cancer

There is only one study actually referenced, not several, and it does not indicate that Roundup leads to the first stages of and/or causes cancer. The Swedish study quoted on mindfully.org, if anyone cared to actually read it, had only 4 cases (out of 404) and 3 controls (out of 741) actually exposed to glyphosate... not nearly enough participants to draw any statistically significant conclusions from. The study outright states "due to low numbers of exposed subjects in some of the categories, definite conclusions cannot be drawn for separate chemicals, such as MCPA and glyphosate, from the multivariate analysis."

The other so-called "source" is a press release from the Organic Consumers' Association drawing the exact conclusions that the Swedish oncologists said couldn't be drawn from their study. Therefore, I am deleting the offending sentence from the environmental and health record section until someone posts legitimate studies that show that Roundup leads to the first stages of and/or causes cancer... studies that do not exist. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary wheat within Legal issues has been deleted

Assuming that this uncited information is accurate, it has nearly nothing to do with Monsanto and was not a legal issue at all:

On October 13, 2004, the European plant variety rights on a conventionally-bred strain of soft-milling wheat owned by French company RAGT Genetique were withdrawn at RAGT's request. The strain, called Galatea, was developed by Unilever and purchased by Monsanto in 1998; RAGT purchased the strain from Monsanto in May 2004 along with Monsanto's European wheat and barley business. Galatea is a cross between a European wheat strain and a conventional Indian variety Nap Hal.

Greenpeace considers RAGT's withdrawal to represent a victory by Greenpeace over Monsanto and claim that they played a central role by proving that the variety in question was not the cross-bred strain described in the application but was really the traditional strain Nap Hal bred by Indian farmers, despite the contrary text of the application. RAGT says it withdrew its plant variety rights for commercial reasons and Greenpeace played no role in its decision.[citation needed]

If I read this correctly, this was a wheat variety developed by Unilever and owned by a private French company that withdrew plant variety rights when it was challenged. This has what exactly to do with Monsanto or its myriad legal issues? Just because Greenpeace considers it to be a victory over Monsanto doesn't make it so, and this section has been deleted. JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT FORGET Monsanto USES X-Military to make sure they control the world's seed supply! They WILL NOT let Farmers SAVE SEED! Think of it, World War III breaks out and we got no seed because Monsanto is bought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.177.43 (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that under advisement... JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A Non-Criticism Section?

I first came to this article to learn about the technology behind the New Leaf potatoe. But the article is entirely about legal controversy and criticism. In fact I had to laugh outloud when I reached the "Criticism" section, because the entire article is list of Monsanto's sins.

The problem is not the presense of criticism, but the lack of any technical information about a company that has created some of the most advanced biotechnology in history. Is it possible to even add that kind of information without it being defaced by Greenpeace activists? This article seems a bit out of control in terms of POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs)

Absolutely right. You can contribute to add that information ;-) --ColdWind (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more biased articles I'm aware of on Wikipedia, but it's not surprising considering how hated the company is. If you can make it better, please do. I don't have time. Cool Hand Luke 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

New DOJ investigation?

It looks like Monsanto is under investigation again. From the AP: "Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws." It's a little too vague to add now, I suspect, but we should probably monitor this. superluser_tc 2009 December 15, 05:19 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Organisms section

This section (with as source a blog..) talked about research which has been refuted; http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527444.000-engineered-maize-toxicity-claims-roundly-rebuffed.html

and which may be the same as described in the "MON863 liver and kidney toxicity should be deleted" discussion section here. 77.163.143.28 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but you deleted the whole section.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Huffington post is a reliable source and is certainly newsworthy. You are welcome to add information that explains that there are conflicting view points. it is not acceptable to remove reliably cited and newsworthy information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it until a balanced text can be included.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Huffington Post is considered a good source for opinion and political analysis (from notable commentators), but not so reliable for facts as their contributors are not vetted as a newspaper would be.[4][5][6]

That said, this study seems to be different from the refuted study above. A short section should probably be written about these. Surely better sources could be found as well. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

did any of you actually read the article http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527444.000-engineered-maize-toxicity-claims-roundly-rebuffed.html ? I spent a bit to read it, and it turns out that this article actually doesn't "roundly rebuff" at the study all. in fact, the study is monstanto's own study! when greenpeace and others forced monsanto to release the study, some independent researchers re-analyzed the data and found that many of the rats who were fed the GMO corn had "unusual concentrations of hormones and other compounds [...] signs of toxicity," says Séralini. the only cited "round rebuff" is that monsanto itself says the findings should be discarded (not surprising). the article says others have dismissed the study, however it gives no source of who those are or why they should be considered reliable. so, in summary, the only rebuttal we have to the statement which was removed is from an article that actually provides what amounts to no rebuttal. based on this, i will add the information back. i had intended to add a statement that the findings were disputed, however without any reliable source for this... it would be POV. if someone does find a reliable source that disputes these findings, i encourage it to be added. the information regarding potential toxicity should not be removed unless there is irrefutable evidence that the findings of the study are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Others used Monsanto's data to claim that the rats suffered abnormalities. In fact, neutral others agrees that these were not statistically significant.

But that's not the issue here. This is a different study. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of faked data in India

WP:RS, that could be used:[7] MaxPont (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)